Prism: concerns over government tyranny are legitimate | Guardian

[TakeALeftTurn]

How to try and avoid political backlash from spying on your own citizens - do a deal with somebody else and swap info #FiveEyes


The “Five Eyes” alliance between the intelligence agencies of the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK effectively permits those governments to circumvent the prohibition against gathering data on their own citizens by sharing information across the Five Eyes intelligence community. The UK for example can spy on Americans and make that information available to the US government on its massive spy cloud – one that the NSA operates and the Five Eyes share.

........

Recent polls in the US suggest that the public is not much preoccupied with the fact that our data is being retained, so long as our own political party is in control of the government. That kind of fickle comfort is small-minded. The point we should derive from Snowden’s revelations – a point originally expressed in March 2013 by William Binney, a former senior NSA crypto-mathematician – is that the NSA’s Utah Data Center will amount to a “turnkey” system that, in the wrong hands, could transform the country into a totalitarian state virtually overnight. Every person who values personal freedom, human rights and the rule of law must recoil against such a possibility, regardless of their political preference. Others take a more cavalier approach, such as former Google CEO Eric Schmidt in 2009: “If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.”

We should heed warnings from Snowden because the prospect of an Orwellian society outweighs whatever security benefits we derive from Prism or Five Eyes. Viewed through the long lens of human history, concerns over government tyranny are always legitimate. It is those concerns that underpin the constitutions of most developed countries, and inform international principles of human rights and the rule of law. Prism and its related practices should be discontinued immediately, and the Utah Data Center should be leased to cloud storage companies with encryption capabilities.

Read more at:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/13/prism-utah-data-center-surveillance?CMP=twt_gu

See also my thread on the NSA Mass Surveillance programs - updated today with the latest info and stories
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022962685

[Laelth]

1. This part is very interesting.

The “Five Eyes” alliance between the intelligence agencies of the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK effectively permits those governments to circumvent the prohibition against gathering data on their own citizens by sharing information across the Five Eyes intelligence community. The UK for example can spy on Americans and make that information available to the US government on its massive spy cloud – one that the NSA operates and the Five Eyes share.

Just a twist that most Americans have probably not considered.

-Laelth

[TakeALeftTurn]

2. Very true

I have now included that part in the Op-Ed.

Thanks for pointing it out.

[Laelth]

6. Cool. n/t

-Laelth

[reusrename]

17. The international use does open up a lot of speculation.

How much do we control world events, like spontaneous overthrowing of governments and such.

I remember this guy orchestrated the overthrow of Hondurus shortly after Obama was sworn in as president. This guy dates back to Iran/Contra. Now look at the shiny new toys he has.

[zeemike]

9. And very chilling.

Say hello to the new world order...where governments co operate to surveil us all...
I guess this is what Orwell had in mind.

[pscot]

11. It sounds like the U.S. is orchestrating

an international domestic surveillance ring. Did Congress authorize this? there has to be some enabling legislation.

[villager]

26. Quit questioning unConstitutional parts of our government! Do you want Sarah Palin to be President!?

Pearl-clutcher!

[backscatter712]

15. Five Eyes: Sounds like the Five Families of the Godfather.

They have a couple things in common: They're engaged in organized crime, and they operate under the Code of Omerta.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. I keep coming across this in research

It is down right Orwellian

[Laelth]

25. Speaking of research ...

I hope you have seen this essay: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/general-keith-alexander-cyberwar/all/

I am still reeling from its implications.

-Laelth

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Going through it

The implications are correct...how fast do you want that dystopia to be real?

[Laelth]

33. It may be too late.

More detailed thread on the subject here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023007663

This is a very delicate time.

-Laelth

[rhett o rick]

3. There seem to be two schools of thought here in DU. Those that want to investigate further to

assure that our government isnt infringing on our rights, and the second school that wants to lynch Snowden, Greenwald, then put their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes, and start singing LaLaLa.

[cali]

5. I'm in the school that thinks there's more than enough evidence already that the

government is infringing on our rights through NSA and other spy agency activities. I also believe that its likely far worse than we know.

[rhett o rick]

7. The problem I see is that who do we turn to? The Republicans would hold the hearings

and they would use them to bring government to more of a stand still than it is.

And we dont know how many Democrats side with keeping this program.

Those that want authoritarian rule are very strong and have the backing of the corporations.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

12. Or demand that you put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and start singing LaLaLa

[rhett o rick]

20. Yes of course. Good point. nm

[emulatorloo]

29. I want to investigate further about govt infringement & I am skeptical about Snowden's claims

For example, that security is so lax that he/other contractors could eavesdrop on Obama.

Don't find Greenwald a particularly credible journalist, but want to know more about what the NSA is doing. I want to know what abuses are truly possible and if so what abused have occured.

So personally I think there are a range of viewpoints, FWIW

[rhett o rick]

34. Let me break it down further. There are two schools of basic thought. Those that want more

transparency and those that dont. Those that dont are desperately trying to distract from potentially the most significant problem.

Snowden thre Greenwald revealed evidence that looks damaging to the NSA with regard to our Constitutional rights. Whether Snowden and/or Greenwald are interested in self promotion doesnt change our need to investigate further. Other people are confirming that what Snowden revealed is damaging evidence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101665985

Here are the issues as I see them in order of importance.

Our government may be surveilling citizens in violation of the Constitution.

If Snowden could get access to this data, then how many others have also gotten access and what if anything did they do with it?

Greenwald is a libertarian and kicks puppies.

Snowden didnt graduate high school and never paid his traffic fine from 1995.

[emulatorloo]

38. Good breakdown, well done

I believe a majority of DU'ers see 1 and 2 as the real issues.

[xchrom]

4. du rec.

[timdog44]

8. I still think there is more to all this.

I am usually a trusting reader of the Guardian, but am having a hard time with this one. A lot of conspiracy theory here.

And I agree with ERic Schmidt to a point. "if you ahve something that you don't want anyone to know, you should not be putting it on Facebook or any of the other stupid social media mudholes, with pictures and music and a total confession."

[RC]

13. You are missing the point.

It is not that the information exists somewhere, it is the fact that governments, especially ours, are gathering all this data in central locations for better data mining, in violation of the 4th Amendment.

And as mentioned elsewhere, the US is in cooperation with and exchanging data with other countries that are spying on us, so our government can kinda truthfully say they are not spying on its own citizens.

[timdog44]

21. I think I get the point.

I think we just disagree at this point. I said elsewhere I may have to take back what I have said and admit I am wrong. I am not averse to doing just that.

The information is always going to be there, even if the government does not have it in hand physically. So, the fact that it is being collected is not against the law. What is against the law is looking at and using it with out a court order. And so I don't believe the 4th amendment is being violated. I don't think that my phone calls to my neighbors or my relatives are being data logged. What is happening is calls to foreign countries are being collected, as are emails and then "if" a name pops up in their information collecting, then they get permission to look at the records on just cause. And they have been doing that to the tune of about a 1000 a year. A pittance.

And the as mentioned elsewhere of the collaberation with other countries, which I also saw, is still just some hearsay and not known for sure. It sounds plausible and would on appearances take the onus off the back of each country who is suppose to be involved.

[TakeALeftTurn]

16. There IS a LOT more that is still to come out

The federal surveillance programs revealed in media reports are just "the tip of the iceberg," a House Democrat said Wednesday.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) said lawmakers learned "significantly more" about the spy programs at the National Security Agency (NSA) during a briefing on Tuesday with counterterrorism officials.
"What we learned in there," Sanchez said, "is significantly more than what is out in the media today."
Lawmakers are barred from revealing the classified information they receive in intelligence briefings, and Sanchez was careful not to specify what members might have learned about the NSA's work.


Read more: http://thehill.com/video/house/305047-dem-rep-lawmakers-learned-significantly-more-about-surveillance-programs-in-nsa-briefing#ixzz2W6vtuzAU

[timdog44]

22. "What we learned in there," Sanchez said,

"is significantly more than what is out in the media today". I am not sure in what context she said that. That is a sentence that could be construed to mean a lot of things. And if our reps are good at one thing, it is using words to mean something different than they are saying. And if she is barred from revealing what they learned, she should not be intimating anything at all.

I'll bet that if they finally went to the meetings that they should have been going to all along, they might not be having to learn anything at these recent meetings.

And if they were truly doing their jobs, this turmoil would not be happening at all.

I still think it stinks, the timing. Crisis after crisis after crisis. Every clown coming out of the woodwork to sound like they know what is going on. And Glenn Greenwald. Lets see, is he selling a book now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. I suggest you do some research into echelon for example

This is very real

[timdog44]

27. I am in the process of doing that

and then "are you going to get the grill going". So I will get back on this. What I started to read about sounds interesting to say the least. Then I have to get the oil changed on car. So late this afternoon. I have to say I have never heard of echelon before.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. I got some links already

And coincidently, at the car shop

[timdog44]

35. I am back. Chores are done.

I read the Wikipedia article. It sounds like a very intrusive tchnology with a big prbablility for abuse. But one of the things in the article said "The European Parliament report concluded that it seemed likely that ECHELON is a method of sorting captured signal traffic, rather than a comprehensive analysis tool." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

It sounds like it is more for industrial espionage. Not that that is excusing it. And it sounds like that has been taken advantage of, and so I can see where corporations would be very afraid of this technology.

What is weird is that this has been around for a long time and sounds like a lot of people have been giving warnings about it. I again wonder at the timing of all this. It still sounds fishy to me. I think it should have been someone among our elected officials should have been blowing the whistle on. Andrew Snowden, I don't trust as far as I can throw him and Glenn Greenwald is hawking a book. So they have an agenda on this.

I agree that there is too much espionage. Never have denied that. Have said all along that the mercenary spies are scum. No patriotism and for sale to the highest bidder. And I am a big believer in patriotism.

So, I would like to see the links you have.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Some links on all this

Echelon


http://www.ncoic.com/nsapoole.htm

Give me a sec to get more

House judiciary hearings on carnivore


http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67305.000/hju67305_0f.htm

More on echelon


http://cryptome.org/jya/echelon.htm

Stellar wind and prism

HTTP://WWW.TALKLEFT.COM/STORY/2013/6/7/42840/79770/CIVILLIBERTIES/PRISM-AND-STELLAR-WIND-PROGRAMS

I think this will get you started...anything by Banford will be good too.

[timdog44]

40. You made work harder than I have in a long time. Have to say

Some of this is a little dry. Like a James Bond martini. Anyway - From your first link "A fundamental foundation of free societies is that when controversies arise over the assumption of power by the state, power never defaults to the government, nor are powers granted without an extraordinary, explicit and compelling public interest. As the late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan pointed out:The concept of military necessity is seductively broad, and has a dangerous plasticity. Because they invariably have the visage of overriding importance, there is always a temptation to invoke security “necessities” to justify an encroachment upon civil liberties. For that reason, the military-security argument must be approached with a healthy skepticism: Its very gravity counsels that courts be cautious when military necessity is invoked by the Government to justify a trespass on [Constitutional] rights.<32>"

Also from the first link "Former Canadian spy Mike Frost recounts how former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher made a request in February 1983 to have two ministers from her own government monitored when she suspected them of disloyalty." AND "The Thatcher episode certainly shows that GCHQ, like NSA, found ways to put itself above the law and did not hesitate to get directly involved in helping a specific politician for her personal political benefit…. [T]he decision to proceed with the London caper was probably not put forward for approval to many people up the bureaucratic ladder. It was something CSE figured they would get away with easily, so checking with the higher-ups would only complicate things unnecessarily.<44>"

Your second link, Mel Watt talking " When the fourth amendment was passed and put into the Constitution, there was at least a feeling that, if the government came to do a search, it at least had to bring a warrant and present it to you or come and kick in your door; and, in some of our communities, we have always had probably an exaggerated fear of whether the latter was likely to occur than the former; and it is probably from that perspective that I have always had this kind of generalized concern."

I do see the problem with this. A couple comments, actually questions. Where the hell have our reps been during all this. Or are they scared of this or enamored of it? They are the ones to protect the constitution and its constituents, if you will?
And, this means that there has to be thousands of people working on these systems. Why, and this is something I have asked in every post I have made (or most) is this coming out now? There surely should have been a number of whistle blowers over the years. Or is this a "members only club" almost like the mafia.

It all does sound very scary. Thanks for the easy reading. And the eye opening information.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. researching this

For the paper...you welcome

There is before 911 and after...and we have had lots of leaks...mostly not picked in the US.

That UKUSA treaty of 1948 was a revelation to me

[timdog44]

42. Obviously

a possibility for the abuse of the citizen's right and more than one amendment.

I fear an abuse that is already happening and that is the industrial/corporate espionage. And this would affect the citizenry in the way of not allowing green technology to come to the fore. Or to prevent organic farming/gardening from occurring. Or someone's buddy gets a contact that another should get. The scenarios are endless. What really surprises me is how long this has been going on. Thanks for the links and all the stuff to think about.

This to me is what this blog site is all about. Exchanging ideas and learning.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Yeah. I knew echelon was bad

(And probably it is old news) but damn

[timdog44]

44. I have to tell you.

I looked at the number of posts you have had and the way you present yourself, and I have been intimidated into not replying to your posts. My first experience at posting was to have my first two posts hidden. I think they call it mobbing, and I got mobbed. It is like an initiation but it was not pleasant. I have fine tuned my posts with the help of a few others, have tried to not swear, and do not use acronyms or abbreviations, or Data like, no contractions. I do not always adhere, but do try.

I may as well unload a little more. I do not put anyone on ignore, but have found I am ignored by 11 star members. Probably not a big loss, but it does not encourage a fair exchange of ideas. I have some favorites and some I do not really care for, but read most posts and comment when I think I have some good thing to contribute. So there it is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Yeah, but quite a few of the people I have on ignore

are serial cyber stalkers

So there is that.



Right now working on the article... I gotta admit, my audience might get a tad overwhelmed if I get too technical... or historical... so will need to fine tune this.

The outline is already way too technical.

[timdog44]

46. I hope the article goes well.

It certainly needs to be not too technical or you will lose your audience. I fear the American public is dumbed down. If you think of me when you are finished, I would enjoy seeing it, if not being too presumptuous.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Not a problem.

And will have a few links per force

[ljm2002]

30. The problem with Eric Schmidt's comment...

...is that it's not just things you "shouldn't" be doing that can cause repercussions, especially in a surveillance state.

So let's just say that I attend an OWS demonstration, and then share pictures on my FB account. I do that because I want to notify friends and family of these issues and my own stance on them, and to (hopefully) broaden support for the cause.

But the government does not like OWS. We already know they cracked down hard on OWS, and that being associated with that group may cause you to be labeled a subversive or worse.

So now it's my fault?

Not buying it. It's the fault of the overreaching security state, who are using the tools at their command to effect policies that have no relation to our Constitution.

[timdog44]

36. I see

what you are getting at. I really do. It is like when I was in Chicago in 1968 at the protests at the Democratic Convention. And now I am making it known, so don't tell anyone I was there.

[ljm2002]

37. Don't worry...

...your secret is safe with me!

[reusrename]

10. This:

The point we should derive from Snowden’s revelations – a point originally expressed in March 2013 by William Binney, a former senior NSA crypto-mathematician – is that the NSA’s Utah Data Center will amount to a “turnkey” system that, in the wrong hands, could transform the country into a totalitarian state virtually overnight.

The common wisdom in the US is that we are too well armed for this kind of thing. We have too many guns, it could never happen here.

This line of thinking illustrates a complete and total misunderstanding of what we would actually be up against.

The only way to mount any effective armed resistance would be to organize. We would have to know who to point our pitchforks at, and we would have to know why they were the enemy.

This new technology is specifically targeted at disrupting our ability to organize. This is what folks need to come to terms with. Only a very small number of individuals need to be removed from the public to accomplish this end.

My guess is that less than 1/100 of 1% of the population would need to be detained in order to create such a totalitarian state. For a town like mine of 30,000, that is less than 3 people. If such a crackdown were to occur overnight, what is it that these folks who have all the guns and feel so safe right now, what is it that they will do? Will they shoot the sheriff deputy when he comes to serve a terrorist warrant on the neighbor? Who, exactly, will they point their guns at?

I believe that this is the question that should be asked. Not: "can it happen here?" but, instead: "what would it look like if it did happen here?"

By the way, there have been many reports that Haliburton has built detainment facilities that can hold up to 1/100th of 1% of the country's population, so that's where I come up with that figure. It is actually way too high a number.


Recent Historic Example: During the Iranian uprising several years ago, only 800 people were arrested, IIRC, and only three or four were killed in order to put down a revolution that was very broad and very deep. Remember that this was a population in which many had lived through the overthrow of the Shah. (Since the revolution was put down, most, if not all, of the 800 who were detained have been executed.) IIRC, the US had no official position on any of this. My understanding of these events is two-fold: that we need to have a bad guy in order to have a nuclear confrontation and that the thwarting of this uprising would not have been possible without our technology. YMMV. Total population of Iran is about 75 million and the only arrested (and have since executed) about 800, which is about 0.0001% or way less than what one might normally think is necessary.

[Sherman A1]

14. From what I recall

this cooperative type of program where one country spies on the other's citizens has been in place for a long time. I remember years ago reading something about the routing of calls and internet information being deliberately routed out of the country to make it fall within the confines of what was accepted for surveillance material. A call from Chicago to Memphis would simply be routed through Canada then it becomes a foreign call. Don't know how much truth there was to that then, but I really believe that this type of thing has been going on for a very, very long time.

[limpyhobbler]

18. "Five Eyes Alliance" - They should see about changing the name to something less creepy. nt

[DirtyDawg]

19. The damn...

...Republicans are loving this shit. They've lucked into a situation that's got us all running around chasing our own asses over nothing more than what Lennie Briscoe, in all those Law & Order episodes, called LUDs (Local Use Details)...only I guess these are IUDs - so to speak - 'International Use, etc., etc...or I suppose they could be TUDs (Total Use). Either way the 'communications road-web' that they represent has been around since the phone company decided that they should convert to electronic/digital/touch-tone from step/analog/rotary-dial in order to be able to keep track of all the billing data...so, in other words, what's the damn big deal?

[grasswire]

28. Orwell was an optimist.

That is more clear every day now.